Media Figures Need a Lesson in the Socratic Method
The principles of debate and argument Socrates espoused over 2000 years ago are still useful tools today
Do you get infuriated when a journalist- a reporter or a TV talking head- asks a politician a question and receives an evasive answer or a statement on an unrelated topic? Do you find yourself thinking- or even shouting at the screen- “Ask a follow-up, damn it!”? Have you observed similar behavior during Congressional hearings when a Senator or Representative is questioning a witness? Do you get the feeling questioners are following a checklist rather than seeking evidence supporting whatever point the subject is making?
Rather than answering those questions, think of them as examples that lead to further discussion: If you are infuriated, why? Or, why do you think a follow-up is called for? Such a discussion is a form of Socratic dialogue, an approach intended to induce a person to confront their assumptions or prior beliefs. Short description: The Socratic Method is based on one question leading to another with the goal of encouraging the subject to reassess a position or assumption. It is the method often employed by lawyers, teachers, coaches, therapists, psychologists, and others. Practiced on one’s self, it forms the foundation of critical thinking and intellectual skepticism.
Exhibit 1: The reporting on Senator Joe Manchin’s opposition to President Biden’s Build Back Better bill last December, is a prime example of the no-follow-up trend in today’s media. At the time, several outlets reported that Manchin (D-WVa) was specifically opposed to an extension to the Child Tax Credit program. The reports cited anonymous sources who claimed that, in private conversations, Manchin said he opposed the extension because he believed the recipients of the funds would spend the money on drugs. After the typical web searches, I found no articles where a journalist asked Manchin to substantiate his belief.
Exhibit 2: This week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the possible confirmation of Federal Circuit Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as a Supreme Court Justice is another example of the Socratic approach being, in Shakespeare’s words, “more honored in the breach than in the observance.“ For the most part, Republican Senators have reverted to the traditional practice of grandstanding, using their allotted time to make speeches. None of them asked the type of questions Washington Post opinion writer Jennifer Rubin (who had a previous career as an attorney) proposed in her op-ed yesterday; Some examples:
Should justices own individual stocks? Why is it a problem to have a federal judiciary heavily dominated by former prosecutors? Is the notion of “originalism” a way to minimize the rights of those excluded by the Framers (e.g., women)?
Exhibit 3: Comedy Central’s Jordan Klepper (The Daily Show, The Opposition with Jordan Klepper) has made a name for himself attending Trump rallies and questioning rally-goers about their various beliefs. While his delivery is ironic, his approach is purely Socratic:
JK: Can a woman be President? Rally-goer: The Presidency is a man’s job. JK: I have [reading], “Women are qualified to be President.” Rally-goer: No. A female has more hormones. She could start a war in 10 seconds. If she has hot flashes, whatever. Boom! JK: Haven’t all wars been started by men? Rally-goer: Yes.
That a comedian employs an evidence-seeking form of questioning highlights the lack of rigor on the part of what was formerly known as the Fourth Estate. This is more than disappointing- it is a threat to our democratic society. So many media outlets and social media accounts function in a partisan manner that they are no longer distinguishable from the state media in authoritarian countries like Russia.
It could almost tempt a thinking person to drink the hemlock.
168 newsletters are emailed on an unscheduled basis at least once a week. I will be posting more frequently so expect shorter pieces several times a week. Newsletters are also posted to www.1hundredsixty8.substack.com. Visit the site to view archived newsletters.
If you would like to support my efforts here, please consider becoming a paying subscriber for $5.00 per month.
If you don’t wish to become a regular subscriber, please consider making a contribution from time to time by leaving a tip. Click below:
Aside from your comments- which are encouraged- if you would like to submit a piece of your own for 168, please email me at nicrosato2@gmail.com.
During January, 2017, at Trump inauguration time, I published a Letter to the Editor at New York Times. Having suffered through the incessant lies of the Trump presidential campaign and inauguration planning, I wanted to urge newspaper and broadcast media reporters to confront Trump every time he aired his nonsense. A summary of the points made, that garnered great editorial and reader approval, made these points: 1. all those working with Trump opening his mouth should prepare intensely prior to meeting him to refresh and learn the truth of the relevant issues; 2. stop all interviews at the first onset of lies and misstatements with immediate correction or confrontation for any lying or faux speaking; 3. make every effort to slow down his fire hose rapid speaking tactic to minimize the prevarication; and 4. challenge his frequent forays into fantasyland story telling. My hope was that most reporters reading the paragraph would take it to heart and both improve their questioning skills and beard the lion in public. I don't know how many news people read or took it to heart but I detected a noticeable change in Trump-news interactions within weeks.
So, less than a Socratic method seemed to enter broadcasting and print pages with Trump, but more news outlets began focusing on and even tallying Trump miscues. There was a quick insertion of 'fact checking' into presidential news reporting. It extended to Twitter and later Facebook which sources ultimately banned Trump entirely from their airways. Lately only Fox News seems to cover Trump public appearances, or rallies; the so-called mainstream media do not. Free and fair coverage of yesteryear has been replaced by censorship of the nonstop crap that comes from Trump whenever he opens his mouth.
My hope without another Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or New York Times editorial letter is that governors, Senators, Congresspersons and others appearing on air will be similarly challenged, corrected, embarrassed, and silenced on national, if not state and local, media, especially when they emulate the Trump style of misinformation, misdirection and outright lying. There is much nonsense in the ether today across the country, but especially in red regions, states and localities so social media must remain vigilant as Fall 2022 campaigning gets under way. No more fair and balanced, only valid and reliable news or data should find the light of day to insure our democracy remains intact and continues with electing representatives of 'We, the People', not authoritarian and dictatorial types this year and into the distant future. It doesn't need to be called the Lemoine Method, but reporters and publishers beware.